• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Should the UK have a written constitution?

Extracts from this document...


03/05/07 Tim Gloster Should the UK have a written constitution? This question has been asked many times in the past few decades to many different governments. During the 18 years of Conservative rule up to 1997 changing the un-written constitution to a written one was hardly discussed, the Conservatives are not in favour of it at all. Conservative Prime Ministers like Margaret Thatcher took the view, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." However since 1997, when Labour came to power, there have been several constitutional changes, such as devolution, and there are calls to have a written constitution from many in the Labour government. ...read more.


All citizens of the UK would know their rights, they would be in a simple, easy to understand and codified format, just like in the US, instead of a part-written constitution which can be very hard to interpret. It would end the odd system where the underlying theories, such as the separation of powers, do not match up with the current practice. However there are also arguments against changing our part-written for a written one. The first, and one of the most important arguments, is that the present system actually works well, as I quoted earlier, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The present system is very flexible and it easy to make and repeal law, in contrast to the US where it is extremely difficult to get laws passed. ...read more.


The bill was written quickly and quickly signed by the Queen and turned into an act, all in the space of a week or so. In contrast other countries have a great deal of problems in changing their written constitution when need be. Overall I think the UK should stick with what we have at the moment, a part-written constitution. It offers a great deal of flexibility, it works and there would be very little agreement on how a new system would work and what would replace all the institutions that bear a royal title and who's rules and history revolve around the monarchy if it were abolished. Our current system also makes us unique in the world. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level United States section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level United States essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    "The Main Difference Between the UK And US Constitution Is That One Is Flexible ...

    4 star(s)

    Because at the moment the government can pass statute law very easily (as they have a majority) and allows the government to be adaptable to ever changing political circumstances. This would in effect make the UK constitution less flexible than it is at present.

  2. Comparison of US and UK Constitution

    The President's budget and appropriations for the executive departments have to be approved by Congress. The President has the power to draw up a foreign treaty but, again, this must be approved and ratified by the Senate. The President can make proposals on legislation but only a member of Congress can turn it into law.

  1. How well does the US Constitution Work

    system continued to work effectively throughout the ages, was dependent on the Constitution and in particular the articles. Articles 1 to 3 clearly outlined the structure, functions and clearly defined the responsibilities of the different branches of the government. This ensured effective governing with strict limitation of power distribution.

  2. Discuss the arguments for and against a codified constitution

    As a result, for example, a number of asylum seeks have been detained without trial. Under a codified constitution they would be unable to introduce this legislation to restrict people's rights and the only way to do this is to amend the constitution which would be difficult and a lengthy process.

  1. "A written constitution, rather than gradual reform, is now essential for the UK to ...

    who are pro constitution, essential to empirically define it, so that the regional assemblies are clear as to what their role is. The Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly are the two main groups that are calling for clearer distinction of roles and powers to be made.

  2. Does the UK have a 'constitution'

    one Constitutions have certain essential characteristics, none of them found in Britain in what in our own opinion might call a consiitution. The British constitution has evolved over many centuries. Unlike the constitutions of America, France and many Commonwealth countries, the British constitution has not been assembled at any time into a single, consolidated document.

  1. Assess the impact of the Gulf War, September 11th and the was in Iraq ...

    of checks and balances, there was no one to question America so they done what they percieved to be correct. They were imposing their own from of government on foreign land, this goes against the Constitution and the 6 defining principles which make up the Constitution.

  2. The Australian Constitution is the ultimate law ruling in Australia

    Unless you've got the political support of both parties (which you often don't have because political opportunism gets in the way), it's very difficult. Unless you've got a real education campaign, people just say, 'Ho hum, what are they on about?

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work